(14) conducted a study to compare apical bacterial extrusion after canal preparation using manual, ProTaper Rotary, and One Shape Rotary techniques. The series consists of three "Shaping" and three "Finishing" instruments now available in 21 mm and 25 mm lengths, and the package contains only six simple-to-use files. Clinicians can generate more uniformly tapered shapes in anatomically challenging or considerably curved canals because to the ProTaper files' unique design features (12, 13). ProTaper files were created with better flexibility, efficiency, and safety than others. There are various methods and instruments for canal preparation, and it is essential to find the best technique and instrument to achieve a successful treatment (10, 11). There are differences among the extruded debris by various rotary systems that are attributed to different factors, such as applied techniques, cutting blade design, cross-section, tapering, type of alloys, number of used files, motion type, and cutting efficiency (7-9). The advancement of rotary techniques for root canal preparation has led an evolution in endodontics practice in dentistry. Since any irritation of the periapical tissues can cause flare-ups, proper shape and irrigation techniques can help to reduce the risk of apical extrusion, though it cannot be completely avoided (1-5). One of the typical issue during root canal therapy (RCT) is extrusion of intracanal debris and irrigants, which no instrument or procedure has completely eliminated the problem (1, 2). It should be mentioned that because of variations in the study designs, the direct comparison of different studies that addressed this problem is not possible, and in vivo studies should be performed to evaluate its clinical relevance According to the results of the present study, there was no significant difference among debris extruded by Superfile Denco, SP1 Gold, and ProTaper Universal files. Conclusions: All instrumentation systems cause the extrusion of debris to the apical area. There was no significant difference among debris extruded by Superfile Denco III, SP1 gold V taper, and ProTaper Universal files (P<0.05). Results: Mean debris values extruded from canals in the Sp1 gold, Superfile Denco, and ProTaper Universal files were 0.0025, 0.0008, and 0.0014, respectively. Eppendorf tubes were used to collect debris. In the preparation procedure, canals were washed to extract all debris from the canal. Moreover, an Orifice shaper specific to each group was used first, and files were removed from canals and then cleaned by wet gauze. Canals were prepared up to the F2 file, and this process was conducted only by one operator. Rotary systems of Sp1 Gold v taper, Superfile III Denco, and ProTaper Universal were used in the first, second, and third groups, respectively. Methods: In total, 51 extracted mandibular premolars were randomly assigned to three groups (n=17). Introduction: This study was conducted to compare three rotary files of Superfile III Denco, Sp1 Gold v taper, and ProTaper in terms of debris extrusion to find the best treatment option.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |